| Author | Message | ||
     Kdraw1 |
It sounds and runs awesome. The adapter is working great. I had to modify it a little bit to allow the pipe to slide on the header far enough to bolt up the front mount. The guy that made the adapter said he'd ceramic coat the header for about $30. I plan on getting back with him this week to see if that deal is still good. He wants to ceramic coat them to match the bike, but I'm not sure I want that much blue on the bike. Kevin | ||
| Ezblast |
I was thinking of adding an enrichener from another cv carb to the Blast carb, however I've had concerns after hearing from others that there seems to be a fair amount of enrichener cable failures - is there a cure for this? Should I be worried about this? I've heard of nothing but good results from this being done on a Blast! Teach me ol wise ones - please?;0) Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ | ||
| Rick_A |
There is a cure...buy a new cable when it goes bad. It's usually not the cable itself that goes bad...it's the plastic friction adjuster that runs out of adjustment and the plastic friction tabs wear out. I wish someone would make the deal out of metal. Mine lasted 7500 miles. | ||
| Dave |
Keihin 40 rebuild kit source? I'm leaking fuel from my accelerator pump rod/boot area. It's a stock carb from all apearances on a '95 S2. Is there another kits or perhaps the James stock rebuild kit JGI-27006-88? DAve | ||
| Robr |
Dave, Most Harley dealers will will have those parts in stock, no kit needed just a few gaskets and o-rings. Rob | ||
| Dave |
Wanted: Proven or recommended CV setup for my 1995 S2 w/D&D slip on. Currently running 185/40/N86J needle in the flatlands of IL. ...oh ...and it's Snap Red so it will go faster than a Parkway Blue S2  hahahaha DAve ...found my accelerator pump diaphram was toast | ||
| Sarodude |
How common is a full charcoal cannister in Ca? Mine feels heavier than an identical can with minimal miles. It seems full of puke. -Saro | ||
| Littledog1 |
Saro, I just went out to the garage and lifted by canister off the shelf....it hasn't gained any weight. Mickey | ||
| Mikej |
Saro, Any suggestions would be in defference to the great minds at C.A.R.B./B.A.R./CA-DMV/Others. The only non-California suggesiton I would have would be to remove the cannister and open it up to see what's inside, or drill a hole and see what drains out if you don't want to remove it from the bike. Then just plug and go play. Most people just do a canectomy, or do like a person I knew years ago and gut the thing and consider the new volume as additional storage for tools or other items as you may want to carry on your journeys. If you want to stay pure legal, go buy a new one from your dealership and see if they require you to turn in your old one. | ||
| Sarodude |
Mikej- I'm just trying to figure out what causes a bike / engine to puke in the charcoal can instead of the puke catch tube (which on my Blast has netted 2 drops of puke in the 5000 or so miles I've had it). Seems like there's a hose thing amiss someplace but I was curious if there's anything more someone might think of. Anyway, that charcoal can seems to be the true culprit of the bike's fuel starvation problems I reported a few weeks back. Recent medical events and the bike's current setup for someone much smaller than me kept me from finding out what the deal was. To make it extremely short and simple, I believe the clogged can was causing the fuel tank to see vacuum from the carb. I don't want to defeat the can. It takes nothing away and does a bit of good for the air one can sometimes slice with a crispy tortilla. -Saro | ||
| Mikej |
I recall some time back people were talking about removing the cans and some were having a bit of trouble after removing the wrong tubes, or bypassing the wrong tubes, or mixing up identical looking tubes. Could be someone somewhere in the past messed with your plumbing and crossed something up. I do know I've done a little preventive maintenance on someone's Blast once last year or so and there was nary a drop in the tube but a fair amount in the airbox. I think the tube only collects what drains down to the bottom of the airfilter box, the charcoal cannister may be seeing the dirty air before it gets to the airbox which could be why your cannister may be full. I do know that if nothing else sometimes the output of spuge is irregular. On my cross country trek some days would see a lot of blowout venting and other days would see virtually none. Wasn't the speed, wasn't the mountains, might have been temperature changes and humidity and barometric pressure somehow, that's all I can figure out. I can understand though why Fran Crane parked her Buell for Ironbutt events due to too much oil loss or consumption as it was too variable to rely on or estimate loss rates. I'm probably wrong, but the air/oxygen sensor, or whatever that thing is near the carb, may be messed up. I still think drilling a hole or removing the cannister and tipping it on end would either make a mess or point you elsewhere in the trouble shooting. | ||
| Joey |
Previously posted in the P3 area: I have a down-draft variable-venturi carburetor that doesn't have jets, a choke, or anything strange like that. It has a throttle plate with holes in the shaft. It has a metering groove inside the bowl. While it does fine on my motorhome, bringing total gas mileage up about 40%, with only a slight increase in power, I'm wondering how I can put it on the Blast! without a cutting torch. I'm also wondering if the Blast! engine is going to provide the necessary vacuum for the 1 7/8" diameter (appropriate for a Dodge 360, works on a 318 well enough) carburetor for it to properly regulate the fuel/air mixture. This carburetor runs at about a 18:1 air/fuel ratio. Richer than that, and my spark plugs turn black. How does the length of the tube between the carb and the head affect things? Who has answers for someone who doesn't ask normal questions? | ||
| Bomber |
Joey the short answer is that's likely to be WAY too much carb for a blast, which is about 500cc (I know you know), and doesn't rev real high . . . . the length of the manifold between the carb and the intake vavle DOES make a differnece, but I doubt if you'd see it with the carb that much larger than optimal . . . . 18:1 is a little richer than ideal . .. how do you know the carb is running at that ratio? and on what engine (which will change the ration), rpm, elevation above sea level, and on and on . . .. | ||
| Littledog1 |
Joey and Bomber, 'down-draft variable-venturi carburetor' are we talking about the old Fisher carburetor? I remember seeing one years ago and the truck that it was on ran fine but I can't imagine that it would work well on a motorcycle because of poor fuel control (lean angle, rapid acceleration, and no accelerator pump). By the way, I believe 18:1 air/fuel was what the old 'lean burn' Chrysler engins ran (poorly) in the late '70s. I'm not sure, but I think something between 12:1 and 14:1 is what most engines run today. With fuel injection and oxygen sensors todays engines run very close to stoichiometric (optimum) mixture. Mickey | ||
| Dave |
CV slide modification question. Some folks say to have the slide chamfered/radiused. Pro? Con? Anyone have a picture or drawing of one properly done? DAve | ||
| Joey |
LittleDog--It's the Fish carburetor, named after John Fish, who invented it about 70+ years ago. Seems I bought one just as the company was selling out to another in the 90s. I tried to order one for a small (2.2L) engine, but they weren't producing them any more. The buying company abandoned the project, but I don't have any details past that. The reason for the lean ratio (I don't know who measured it, or how) is that the fuel is mixed with the air much better, as there is a significant vacuum directly under the throttle plate. This causes the fuel to essentially boil, thereby vaporizing the fuel as it mixes with air. This allows more fuel to be in contact with air as it burns, which leaves much less unburnt fuel. When properly tuned, the emissions from this carburetor, without any smog devices on the engine, has fewer emissions than most new engines that are chocked full of smog devices. Too bad they're not still around or I'd get one made for a small engine. I haven't taken it apart enough to know if I could modify it for side draft. It would be fun just to see if it would work at all. It did seem to to OK on my 2.2L, but I could never get vacuum advance to work, as the electronic ignition/timing circuits had a 2-stage advance setup. | ||
| Blake |
Sounds like total BS to me. When the throttle on a conventional carb is only partly opened, it too creates a vacuum and significant turbulence. At one time, it may have been far superior to the conventional technology. Not today. Is it better than fuel injection? Fuel injected bikes/cars don't get any better fuel mileage than a properly tuned carbureted version. Besides, "better mixing" won't prevent detonation, which in today's high compression engines is the main reason why such lean mixtures will not work. Long ago when CR's were below 7:1 or even less, it may not have been a problem. Mixing and vaporization occur in the combustion chamber more than in the intake tract anyway. If a "magic" carburetor claims to achieve equivalent fuel efficiencies greater than a propane fueled engine, what would that tell us. Propane after all vaporizes totally and mixes thoroughly with intake air well before combustion. If you read about any kind of magic carburetor achieving amazing fuel efficiency compared to conventional systems, trust me, it is BS. Most likely is that such a hoax will cut the power output of your engine more than increase it's fuel efficiency. My Buell, with 100 RWHP gets well over 50 mpg with it's stock CV carburetor. Let's see some snake oil carb do that, and I'll be impressed. | ||
| Rick_A |
There's no way fuel will boil due to increased air velocity. That's atomization not vaporization. I was told there was once a carb made with a heating element to pre-vaporize the fuel/air charge. Well, it apparently wasn't safe for obvious reasons! Can anybody confirm if this is true? The delivery of the charge is important...it should be atomized before reaching the combustion chamber...but it's vaporized by the heat and pressure of compression. A fuel/air ratio is a fuel/air ratio regardless. So what's the big difference between that carb and any other fixed venturi carb? The benefit of EFI is that the A/F ratio can be most precisely metered through the rev range. Snake oil's the ticket, huh? Where can I get me some of that? | ||
| Hootowl |
I know of a few vendors... | ||
| Littledog1 |
Joey, I just did a quick Google search and found a manufacturer of the Fish carb in England: http://minowfish.co.uk They appear to make 3 sizes, mostly for compact cars. Mickey | ||
| Joey |
Blake! I'm explaining it as well as I'm able. Perhaps I'll get the book one of these days and type it, verbatim, and you can give us a better explanation. It works, and if you don't believe me, come to Delaware, and I'll show you. Motorhome, properly tuned, got 8 MPG. After putting on the Fish carburetor, got 11.5 MPG on the same route (Wasilla to Fairbanks and back). When I put it on my car (engine too small for the carburetor..) I lost part of my vacuum advance, (2-stage advance) but the gas mileage still increased. Before you talk about tuning the carburetor, this was a Plymouth Horizon with a feedback carburetor. I kept it running quite well. Perhaps the biggest advantage of the Fish carburetor is that, except at full throttle, standard carburetors allow the fuel to recondensate to some degree on the throttle plate. Are you familiar with direct injection? That's where they run a gasoline engine using a setup similar to diesel, where the fuel is injecteded directly into the combustion chamber. The air intake is wide open, just like a diesel. Efficiency and power are about 20% to 30% better than standard fuel injection. It's supposedly becoming common in Japan, but I haven't read anything about it lately. The drawback is the engine has to be designed to handle lean mixtures, and the emissions caused by excessively lean mixtures are in excess of US limits. | ||
| Joey |
Fish carburetor from the company where I got mine in 96: http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/bccfish.htm Little Dog mispeld http://minnowfish.co.uk/ Hey! He added a de-icing element! Last time I drove my motorhome a couple weeks ago, the darn carburetor kept icing over--it was around 40 degrees that day. | ||
| Hootowl |
Joey, Yamaha makes direct injected 2 strokes for their jets skis, (...excuse me, "Personal Water Craft"...don't want to violate any trademarks,) and they absolutely kick ass. P.S. When you're doing 70 MPH on a very small boat, HANG ON! It hurts when you hit the water. | ||
| Joey |
Not as much as it hurts hitting a big truck while riding a Blast!, I bet. | ||
| Blake |
Rick, "There's no way fuel will boil due to increased air velocity." Increased velocity results in reduced pressure; reduced pressure results in reduced vaporization temperature (boiling point). The principle is correctly stated, but like I said, any carburetor with the throttle only partly opened will create such a condition. The problem is that in expanding to lower pressure the air/fuel mixture is releasing energy and so suffers a commensurate drop in temperature. Therein lies the reason some of these snake oil carburetor people want to have a heating element in the intake and why such a carburetor would tend to ice up even at normal operating temperatures. | ||
| Blake |
Joey, I don't dispute the results you obtained. However, you would get the same result if you limited the travel of your conventional carburetor's throttle to half or so of its normal range. The fishy carb simply reduces the power output of your engine for large throttle openings. With the fishy carb, when you stomp the throttle open or even halfway open, you have a significantly greater intake flow restriction, thus less air/fuel getting to the engine, thus less power for the same gas pedal position, thus you are using less fuel. If you want to see the truth of what is going on, put it on a dyno. There simply is NO free lunch. The simple alternative to the fishy carb is to put a chunk of 2x4 under your gas pedal to keep you from using WOT. | ||
| Blake |
Joey, As to your claims wrt direct injection. Where did you hear such claims? Do you really think that direct injection improves engine efficiency and power by 20-30% ? I don't. Do you really believe that burning a leaner mixture causes emissions problems?  I don't. I've been wrong before, will be again, but neither of those claims makes ANY sense to me. There is NO free lunch. If direct injection offered such HUGE benefits, it would have been in all the cars coming out of Japan and Detroit a LONG time ago. BTW, even a direct injection intake includes a throttle. The only IC engine I know of that does not is BMW's engine that uses variable valve lift for throttle control. | ||
| Court |
>>>>There is NO free lunch. Say it ain't so wonderboy? Next thing you'll be telling me that fastest, lightest, lowest and loudest are all there is to life...... | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake, Lean mixtures lead to higher combustion temps. While this is good for burning more fuel (less CO emmissions) it is bad for the NOx emissions. Nitrogen is a noble gas and is stable unless subjected to extreme temps. An overly lean running engine will produce high NOx emissions, and it's the NOx's that turn into smog when hit by ultraviolet light. Three way catalytic converters are capable of returning the NOx's to N2 and O2 so I'm not sure what the issue is there. Yamaha found power with direct injection, but that's with a 2 stroke. The only way I could see a 4 stroke benefiting from direct injection is by waiting until just before TDC to inject the fuel. That way the lean F/A mixture would have no chance to detonate because it would only be air until you were ready to fire it off. That's a SWAG though. Jeff | ||
| Hootowl |
I got a Coke can stuck under my gas pedal once. Does that count? Jeff...doing my part for the environment... |
